Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the second amendment was written under a very different reality?
At the time, when firearms referred to muskets, all you needed was arming people with enough muskets to effectively counter the government.
This was also emerging from an oppressive foreign government.
In today's reality, if the government wanted to oppress you, they have tanks, laser guided missiles and chemical weapons, to name a very few. None of your fancy schmancy AK-47's will do a dent.
Besides, the government is our own people. Would they really shoot their own brothers and fathers? It's more effective to educate everybody.

For the "purists" that stick to the "it was written by our all wise beyond reproach forefathers" argument, if they were so wise we wouldn't need an amendment to begin with, would we?

Explain how fighting the government is useless and futile to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mention it to the successful revolution in Libya, and the ongoing one in Syria.

I'm sure they'll get a kick out of it and gladly trade everything in for bolt-action small caliber varmint rifles.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the second amendment was written under a very different reality?
At the time, when firearms referred to muskets, all you needed was arming people with enough muskets to effectively counter the government.
This was also emerging from an oppressive foreign government.
In today's reality, if the government wanted to oppress you, they have tanks, laser guided missiles and chemical weapons, to name a very few. None of your fancy schmancy AK-47's will do a dent.
Besides, the government is our own people. Would they really shoot their own brothers and fathers? It's more effective to educate everybody.

For the "purists" that stick to the "it was written by our all wise beyond reproach forefathers" argument, if they were so wise we wouldn't need an amendment to begin with, would we?

Same reality, different time. The people only had muskets, but so did the army.
Present day, the people should (and do) have the right to own fully automatic arms as well. They are heavily taxed and regulated which needs to change. As far as tanks, missiles, etc. If someone can afford it, absolutely.

Your argument about nuclear, chemical, etc weapons and that the governments military would defeat the citizens is weak.

We did it before and can certainly do it again. It only took 3% of us

If it came to that, plenty of military would side with civilians and refuse to use arms against their own.

And if you look at it from a numbers game... the military doesn't stand a chance in hell in defeating regular citizens. They are out numbered and out gunned

All of this is just "talk" obviously... a well armed country is enough weight to prevent governments from overreaching out of fear. Just like having the most nuclear weapons is enough to scare out a nuclear war from happening. Fvck with the balance of that perceptual scale... and you get what you get

Explain how fighting the government is useless and futile to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mention it to the successful revolution in Libya, and the ongoing one in Syria.

I'm sure they'll get a kick out of it and gladly trade everything in for bolt-action small caliber varmint rifles.

Kind of getting apples and oranges here, but anyway:

The governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are ostensibly constitutional democracies (yes, debatable ... another thread though) we instituted and support. Given that they still are standing and functioning (more or less) despite various insurgencies would seem to indicate some level of futility on the insurgent's parts, even if they don't see it that way.

As for the successful revolutions in Libya and ongoing one in Syria, these were/are against unconstitutional non-democratic autocracies. The success (current and hoped for) of these revolutions relied on far more than the personal fire arms typical of our Second Amendment discussions. Heavy duty NATO armed support was required in Libya and only an increasing level of heavier duty arms well beyond guns and rifles, along with other forms of external support, are what is turning the tide in Syria.

Again though, I think these examples are at best tangential to our own Second Amendment discussions and don't inform them directly. I think this just sort of feeds into the romanticized, mythical ideal of the individual armed minuteman standing athwart of some malevolent external force with his musket, errr, M-16, though that "external" force is often defined as our own, Constitutionally-based government elected by us (irony?).

Again though, I think these examples are at best tangential to our own Second Amendment discussions and don't inform them directly. I think this just sort of feeds into the romanticized, mythical ideal of the individual armed minuteman standing athwart of some malevolent external force with his musket, errr, M-16, though that "external" force is often defined as our own, Constitutionally-based government elected by us (irony?).

I think reasonable people can agree to disagree about whether or not it's a "romanticized, mythical ideal." It can be argued that part of the reason our "own, Constitutionally-based government elected by us" continues to respect the people is that it knows that it would have a hell of a fight on its hands if it decided to unilaterally strip people of their rights (from both the left and the right).

Having spent quite a bit of time with politicians over the years, I can say without a doubt that there are many, many politicians in power right now who would think nothing of stripping people of various rights (of all kinds) if they thought they could get away with it. Our governments, on all levels, are full of people who think of themselves as benevolent paternalists but who are really just power freaks.

Our vices are suppressed by our own moral code of ethics, the views of others and judicial punishment.

For those in high ranking, political, power positions the above three rarely apply to them. Their moral code is shielded by greed and power, the views of others is not important as they retain power over them and as far as judicial repercussions, a different set of rules for them and us.

The reality of our republic remaining civilized and our government driving the wants of its constitients is simply based on three things:

1. Maintaining an open dialogue on political matters with us
2. Maintaining a fear that constituents will vote them out of office
3. Maintaining a fear that constituents will use arms against them

My oath is to the constitution; not to the government, not the president, not congress.

And Rhumb, I'm not talking about the governments of those respective countries, I'm talking about the simple fact that armed people are putting up tremendous fights against their armed, trained, and technologically advanced adversaries. People with individual arms that match the individual arms of the militaries they're facing, but without bombs, jets, tanks, laser-guided munitions, etc.

The governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are ostensibly constitutional democracies (yes, debatable ... another thread though) we instituted and support. Given that they still are standing and functioning (more or less) despite various insurgencies would seem to indicate some level of futility on the insurgent's parts, even if they don't see it that way.

As for the successful revolutions in Libya and ongoing one in Syria, these were/are against unconstitutional non-democratic autocracies. The success (current and hoped for) of these revolutions relied on far more than the personal fire arms typical of our Second Amendment discussions. Heavy duty NATO armed support was required in Libya and only an increasing level of heavier duty arms well beyond guns and rifles, along with other forms of external support, are what is turning the tide in Syria.

Again though, I think these examples are at best tangential to our own Second Amendment discussions and don't inform them directly. I think this just sort of feeds into the romanticized, mythical ideal of the individual armed minuteman standing athwart of some malevolent external force with his musket, errr, M-16, though that "external" force is often defined as our own, Constitutionally-based government elected by us (irony?).

Parity between the US civilian population and the US military is only part of the equation.

When one is considering taking on a fight, whether one will win or lose is only part of the consideration. Even if one is sure they'll win, how much of a beating they'll take on the way to victory is also worth thinking about.

So even if the US civilian population can't "win" a "war" against the US military (which is far from certain, anyway), the potential resistance the civilians would offer can by itself deter the govt from starting that fight.

You've certainly seen police "ending" peaceful, sit-in style protests, where the protesters calmly allow themselves to be handcuffed and loaded into the paddy wagon. And you've seen protests where the opposite is true and there's combat between the police and the protesters with injuries and property damage and lots of exciting video for the 10 o'clock news. Which do you think a govt boss (mayor, governor, president) would order more quickly and with less worry?

Same reality, different time. The people only had muskets, but so did the army.
Present day, the people should (and do) have the right to own fully automatic arms as well. They are heavily taxed and regulated which needs to change. As far as tanks, missiles, etc. If someone can afford it, absolutely.

Your argument about nuclear, chemical, etc weapons and that the governments military would defeat the citizens is weak.

We did it before and can certainly do it again. It only took 3% of us

If it came to that, plenty of military would side with civilians and refuse to use arms against their own.

And if you look at it from a numbers game... the military doesn't stand a chance in hell in defeating regular citizens. They are out numbered and out gunned

All of this is just "talk" obviously... a well armed country is enough weight to prevent governments from overreaching out of fear. Just like having the most nuclear weapons is enough to scare out a nuclear war from happening. Fvck with the balance of that perceptual scale... and you get what you get

in other words, **** happens, and you're fine with mass murders. gotcha.

__________________

** Political signature removed - Tim330i **

Quote:

I always have to laugh when I see a thread described as "Not Work Safe." Is there anything on the OT forum that's really "work safe"? If I were your boss, I'd be mad if you spent any time on this forum at work at all. How is a picture of a naked girl any less work safe than, say, a picture of a matador getting gored in the *** by an angry bull? - VaderDave

Maybe if Connecticut had laws against theft, bringing guns to a school, and murder, none of this would have happened.

Or maybe if there had been an assault weapons ban in 1999, columbine wouldn't have happened.

who said laws prevent crime. they only define it.

__________________

** Political signature removed - Tim330i **

Quote:

I always have to laugh when I see a thread described as "Not Work Safe." Is there anything on the OT forum that's really "work safe"? If I were your boss, I'd be mad if you spent any time on this forum at work at all. How is a picture of a naked girl any less work safe than, say, a picture of a matador getting gored in the *** by an angry bull? - VaderDave

Maybe if Connecticut had laws against theft, bringing guns to a school, and murder, none of this would have happened.

Or maybe if there had been an assault weapons ban in 1999, columbine wouldn't have happened.

Don't waste your time proving whats 100% correct. These pukes have an agenda and will use anything to help them achieve the disarmament of the citizens of the USA.

Tell me why, not even a single person who blamed assault type military weapons for the Sandy Hooks massacre, has come out with an update after it was discovered the murders were committed with hand guns?